In a judgment underscoring judicial restraint in matters involving technical and infrastructural expertise, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a group of commercial property owners challenging a proposed alteration in the design of a major highway project in Jammu.

The Court held that the feasibility and viability of such infrastructure projects are matters that lie squarely within the domain of expert authorities and not within the scope of judicial review. "The issue with regard to access to the national highway is a matter within the domain of experts, and it would not be open to the High Court to interfere in such decisions of the experts by exercising of its powers of judicial review," it said.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed that the Court could not act as an appellate authority over decisions taken by experts concerning project cost, technical feasibility, provisions for entry and exit points, safety measures, and related concerns.

“Neither this Court nor the petitioners are at all equipped to decide upon the viability and feasibility of the proposed change of scope of work,” the Court observed, emphasizing the limits of judicial intervention in policy and technical matters.

The Dispute

The case arose from the construction of a 4-lane flyover on the Jammu-Akhnoor Road (NH-144A), a project being executed by the National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (NHIDCL). Petitioners Nos. 2 to 12, who are individual members of an association of commercial property owners (Petitioner No.1) at Palm Island Mall, Canal Road, Jammu, approached the High Court seeking directions to ensure that the construction is carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Detailed Project Report (DPR).

According to the petitioners, the Palm Island Mall was constructed in compliance with all statutory requirements, including a sanctioned building plan that included a 40-foot-wide entry road from Akhnoor Road. The petitioners submitted that the revised project plan deviated from the DPR and drastically reduced the road width in front of the mall to 14 feet. They alleged that the flyover was now being made to land prematurely at the 1,000 km mark, instead of the originally planned 1,350 km mark, creating a “blind wall” that would obstruct visibility and access to the Mall, thereby impacting its commercial viability and causing traffic congestion and safety concerns.

Court’s Observations

Rejecting these contentions, the Court noted that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), under the terms of the contract, is empowered to make modifications to the scope of work. The Court also noted that once such changes are proposed, contractors are mandated to submit revised proposals within 15 days of receiving a change notice.

The Court was categorical in stating that mere inconvenience to the petitioners or their customers cannot form a valid basis to restrain the authorities from modifying the project design. “Whether the merger scheme proposed by the official respondents would be technically feasible or whether it would serve the larger public interest are matters beyond the scope of judicial review,” the Court reiterated.

Significantly, the Court acknowledged that the official respondents had assured that the width of the entry and exit points to the Mall would remain unchanged and that unhindered access would be maintained.

The contention of the petitioners that the respondent authorities were not authorized to deviate from the sanctioned DPR was also dismissed as without merit. The Court found that the respondents had provided cogent and convincing reasons for abandoning the originally approved merger plan and coming up with a new plan, which is still under consideration.

“It is not open to this Court to direct the official respondents to abandon their proposal to change the scope of work and to go ahead with the original merger plan which, as already stated, would not only delay the project but also cause a lot of inconvenience to the public and result in a loss to the Government exchequer,” the Court held.

Conclusively, the Court ordered, "For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition. The same is dismissed accordingly. The interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated."

Cause Title: Palm Island Space Owners Welfare Association & Ors. v. Union of India and Others [WP(C ) No. 1588/2024]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Vikram Sharma, Advocates Sachin Dev Singh, S. Sanpreet Singh, Zaheer Abbas Khan

Respondent: Senior Advocate Rahul Pant, Advocates Anirudh Sharma, Sunny Mahajan

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Sanjay DharJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High CourtJudicial Review

Sukriti Mishra

    Sukriti Mishra was a Legal Correspondent at Verdictum. She covered the Supreme Court. She completed her graduation with BA. LL.B (Hons.) from The ICFAI University, Dehradun. Sukriti started covering courts in March 2022. She had previously worked with another legal news portal, where she covered the Delhi High Court and Trial Courts.